ESPN reporting A&M to SEC; likely Clemson, FSU, and Missouri as well
Mizzu would get SEC into St Louis market....ok Big Ten bring in Oklahoma...OklAhoma St...Kansas and Kansas St....makes the most sense. Don't be pussy footing around with Texas and ND!!
i want nd
i want nd
Come on man, why the hell would we want k-state?
Very good basketball program, okay football.
And that's it. No, thanks.
I would highly doubt the Big Ten gives a shit about any school's basketball program. Conference expansion is about football money and football money only.
If the Big Ten expanded again, it would only likely be to add ND and another team. Without ND, I seriously doubt there will be any more expansion. Even for Texas, which seems to want too many financial advantages.
I hate to have to do this everytime the subject comes up, but:
This is not only about football. Football brings tens of millions of dollars to universities, while research brings in billions of dollars. The Big Ten is first and foremost an academic conference, and as such controls billions of dollars of research. Conference expansion will not dilute the conference's standing among the elite power brokers of research finance.
Therefore the list probably includes:
Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas, Mizzou, Texas
Big East: Pittsburgh
ACC: Georgia Tech
Mizzou, Pittsburgh and Kansas all make sense from a "footprint" sense. Both Texas and Georgia Tech bring large markets (Texas would obviously be substantially larger, but would probably not play well as a collegial research team member...)
Georgia Tech may be difficult to pull from the ACC, in which case I think Notre Dame would be an OK substitute (although Georgia Tech definitely brings more research clout to the table.)
Sorry to make you have to do that. It was probably harder on you than it was on me.
Well played, sir.
i like the way you think. Iowa State, Kansas, Mizzou and Pittsburgh would be great additions considering Notre Dame and Texas most likely would not join, and GT just seems too far away.
Totally agree, but then I'm not sure ND makes a huge amount of sense either. They have some research areas, but from that standpoint I'd much rather have Texas or GT. My guess is that if the B1G expands, you'll see Pittsburgh join (decent academic profile, some good research opportunities) and maybe the best academic school from what remains of the Big 12 (which may be Mizzou - I'm not sold they would want to move to the SEC).
that K-State belongs in the Big 10, is it? Their basketball program has been very good as of late, but for most of the 90's and 00's, it's been a drought. Their football program has had flashes, but "okay" is exactly the right evaluation: not bad, not good, but ok. Don't you think the B10 can get someone better than "okay" in that department?
Academics and TV market (plus other $$$) point to "needs improvement" as well. I know STL and KC have been talked about as the markets Mizzou might bring in...but I don't think K-State would grab much of either, especially not STL.
The problem is you probably don't get Kansas without Kansas State. Kansas is a FANTASTIC basketball program and would be a HUGE addition to the Big Ten. Plus, if you only take 1 team, you have to worry about the whole lopsided divisions issue.
To me you go after Oklahoma first and foremost, even though the rumor is they are demanding to bring Ok State with them as well. Then maybe look at getting Kansas, which would probably come with Kansas State as well
program is one of the best in the business, and KState would need to tag along in order to snare KU.
But I don't know if bball is as important in the overall evaluations as football is, *if only* for the fact that, at most schools, football is the only sport that doesn't lose money. Most athletic departments balance their budgets by distributing the money made by football to nearly every other sports. (Probably at a place like KU, bball makes money too. But I think that at most schools, bball is at best a break-even sport budget-wise.)
Side note: does anyone find it strange that Gottlieb is confirming the move by A&M, when they don't have their Board of Regents meeting until Monday?
The only way to describe Kansas as huge is in terms of it's square mileage that it would add to the B1G. Great basketball? Yes. Great football? Absolutely not. Academically? USNWR rates them the same as Nebraska. There was some serious questioning if Nebraska belongs in the B1G because of their academic standing. UK would be a bottomfeeder tied with Nebraska. Don't agree with adding Kansas, especially if KSU comes as a package deal. I'd just as soon see Cincinnati or Toledo. At least then, OSU would have an in-state competitor in the B1G. (NOTE: I do NOT want Cincinati or Toledo in the B1G)
between revenue, tv ratings, brand management, academics and athletic prestige in both football and bball.... but if they were pressured to go to sixteen, I think the following would be their priority (assuming Tejas is off limits):
-New York market
-whatever elite big 12 powers they can grab ( i would prefer OU and KU for their status in their respective dominant sport)
Kansas would bring in the St. Louis market also, so I can understand this. My guess is Kansas State is likely a package deal with Kansas.
I would be surprised if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State end up in the Big Ten, I see them heading to the PAC 12.
With the ACC having lost two teams, allegedly, they will be looking for at least two more; I see South Florida and West Virginia fitting the bill to move to the ACC.
Keep in mind, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse are still available for the taking; right back where we were about a year ago.
Also keep in mind with whoever is in discussion to jump to the Big Ten - Academics. Nebraska was the lowest ranked academic college to join the Big Ten, and promptly lost status in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
Nebraska did not get kicked out of the CIC. They got kicked out of the AAU. Hopefully, they will be able to regain their position in the AAU with the potential research money they could bring in as a result of partnerships with other Big Ten schools.
At any rate, the Big Ten does care a lot about academics and will not invite Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State for academic reasons.
Not only was it not the CIC, but Nebraska's issue with the AAU wasn't really academics. It had to do with the way the medical school was counted because it's not at the main campus in Lincoln, but at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
The medical school is actually its own campus: UNMC. It's in Omaha, but it's not part of UNO. The crux of your argument is spot on, though - the med school's research dollars didn't count in the AAU's eyes because it's technically a different campus within the state system.
No Kansas or Kansas State...please
Let's pillage out east!
I would be very happy if Missouri went to the SEC. I don't want them in the Big 10.
according to USNWR rankings.
Front page of my ESPN mobile
Doug Gottlieb is the "reporter" on this story. I think I'd actually trust a random rivals site more.
Adding to this, the Times makes it seem like it's not a done deal... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/sports/sec-presidents-to-discuss-texas-ams-admission.html?_r=1&ref=sports
And the author of that piece, Pete Thamel, added later on twitter that he had another source denying the other three joining SEC. http://twitter.com/#!/PeteThamelNYT/status/102418662069256192
Add in that all the talk has come out of the A&M camp, and others have questioned what the SEC really gains out of this, and I'm doubtful they go to 16.
the big12 is so done for. texas will probably be independent by this time next year
Well, the next question is what about the ACC? I suppose they raid the Big East again, or they merge to form their own mediocre super-conference? And what about TCU? Will they get cold feet if the Big East is raided again? Does the Big 12 make a move for them to keep the conference afloat?
I have no idea what TCU would do, but all of the BE/ACC teams are in a bad spot. Duke/UNC/NC State all seem joined at the hip, as are UVA and VT which takes them from being desirable to much less so.
Miami, MD, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and WVU all seem like they should be okay when it's done, but that leaves a lot of teams without a home.
Edit: Probably add UConn as a school that should be alright, but their finances currently suck.
wholeheartedly disagree with UVA and VT being attached at the hip. theyve only been in the ACC together since '03 and before that I don't think they were ever in the same conference. plus, I seem to remember UVA being opposed to VT joining the ACC back in '03 so I doubt the hokies would feel too bad about leaving UVA in the dust
From what I've heard, the state government in Virginia was responsible for getting VT into the ACC in the first place. If that's the case, they're not about to let UVa bail without Tech. Also, I would much rather have Virginia than Virginia Tech.
going independent, rather than join the Big Ten. I don't see them giving up their TV Network now and if they ever did to join a conference, they go to the Pac-12...they were close to joining them last time.
We better rope up Texas soon.
We better rope up Texas soon.
Big Ten does not want Texas after their selfishness has been revealed.
There's that, and the shameless self-promotion and attempt to start one's own media empire. Who really wants to be in the same conference with a prima donna?
The big problem with Texas is the Longhorn Network and ESPN. One of the proponents which is causing A&M to move to the SEC was the Longhorn Network because it's going to be playing at least two games per season on that channel. Now, we obviously have the BTN and since Delany and ESPN aren't the best of friends, there could be some things that might be hard to get around with these stubborn entities.
Would be to roll up the Longhorn network, the BTN and the ND network (if they get one) into a single cable package. It wouldn't be ideal but it would be a way to solve that problem.
I personally do not want teams with their own networks. Especially because OSU could probably support their own, and I don't think UM can. Don't want a precedent started in the Big Ten.
ND has a network, its NBC. They have owned it for the last 20yrs.
Seems like 200 years. The sex must be fantastic for the ND-NBC relationship to even work. I mean, Notre Dame? Really?
Unlike the Weis contract, though, the NBC TV contract has actually benefited Notre Dame.
NBC jumped into the contract with Notre Dame in 1991 when they were at their post-Parseghian peak. 1991 was the only year between 1988 and 1993 that they didn't finish in the top ten. This includes one national championship in 1988 and two other serious runs at it in 1989 and 1993.
NBC obviously didn't count on the decline Notre Dame suffered through in the late Holtz years and the mediocre coaches who succeeded him.
It's pretty much habitual at this point. God help any other network who tries to play "wrecking ball" against their co-dependence.
Except even NBC is growing tired of waiting for the "Return to Glory"; hence their decision to air some games on Versus...sorry NBC Sports.
Somebody at NBC needs to get insurance and delivery confirmation on the "Return To Glory", as it obviously keeps getting lost in the bowels of some sorting center between New York City and South Bend.
Here's the problem with that: all three networks are run by different companies. (B1G = Fox; LHN = ESPN; ND = Comcast/NBC)
Mizzou wanted out of the Big 12 and into the Big Ten pretty badly. Makes sense I suppose.
And call it good!
I think Oklahoma and OSU (not that OSU) would have to be a matched set.
This is going to be a fun season with expansion talk, lingering OSU troubles AND football season to boot. If the B1G goes to 14 hopefully this is the end if “Legends & Leaders” and M and OSU can be in the same division. So board what two are we getting?
As the Big 12 crumbles, these are the best two pieces for the Big Ten.
Then, as the ACC starts pillaging the Big East we swoop in for Pitt and give Notre Dame one last chance to be a part of the 64-team non-NCAA conference. If they don't don't join, no shot at the 64-team championship. ND balks and gives up independence.
Wasn't Missouri a slave state (Maine/Missouri Compromise)? I would say Missouri is a more natural fit for the SEC than the B1G, personally.
Why does Missouri being a slave state have anything to do with the present day?
History: Missouri, was a border state and the legislature voted to remain in the Union. There were far more Unionists in the State than Pro-southern voters.
I'm pretty sure it was a joke.
Ok, I failed at detecting the sarcasm.
I wouldn't worry about it and to be completely honest... Shit like that matters to southerners, not that they want to have slaves but they have this brotherhood of the south thing and if you were on their side in the Civil War you instantly gain Respect and if not you get hatred (no, really...)
There is no such thing as "The Civil War" down here, it is "The War of Northern Agression."
Also, you refer to this skirmish in past tense, below the Mason-Dixon line it has not yet ended. I will send transmission of the enemy's movement when the bars empty out and muskets have been picked up for battle.
Hopefully my position has not been compromised with this piece of intel...
Missouri sent troups to fight with the Union, but some towns also sent troups to fight with the Confederacy. Bizarre situation.
On a lesser note...I expect the B1G will keep its powder dry on expansion. I'm not convinced there's a pot of gold at the end of the expansion rainbow. ND would be the only exception, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah, at the Battle of Vicksburg Missouri had 23 Regiments fighting with the Union and 19 fighting with the CSA.
I'm only half joking here.
They were considered a border state but could hold slaves.
You(the states) were either free or slave. Most of the slave owning state made the decision to secede from the Unions. Others, like Missouri, did not
Slave state ? You sir deserve to be bitchslapped, back hand style for said comment.
I like Duke, UNC, UVa, and Maryland. Va Tech maybe. I feel a lot more excited about those guys than the Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers ideas.
I think Duke, UNC, UVA, and Maryland will stay with the ACC until it completely collapses; and given the ACC's prestige in basketball, I think it will put up more of a fight to stay alive than people give it credit for.
The traditionalist in me just threw up in my mouth a bit, but those first three schools are excellent academically and draw large dollars as they're all in the top twenty five...
Go to page 16...
I would throw BC on your list too.
I don't understand BC's appeal. According to the link above, they're not in the top 50 for academic research expenditures, they don't have a good football program (in the modern era) and they're small religious school, even smaller than NU. BC seems like a poor mans ND to me.
I've hated BC my whole life and can't believe I'm defending them but they are a prestigous academic school. They probably aren't near the top of research expenditures because of their small size. The football program has done pretty well since joining the ACC. Better than I think you are giving them credit for. You're right about the poor man's Notre Dame part though. That drives them nuts.
They are a prestigious undergrad institution, but ND doesn't bring anything to the table with the academics the CIC wants either. They sell tickets and BTN subscriptions so that makes up for it (like Nebraska does). If there's a second tier football team added, I would bet the house it will be a research powerhouse.
Is anyone else not liking all of this expansion?
actually makes me long for the 10 team B1G, the Pac 8, Big 8, SWC, etc. Unless/until there's a real playoff and championship, this whole newfangled BCS and expansion stuff is an abortion.
What the college football world REALLY needs is a power shift back north. And for you to get off my porch.
The Big Ten isn't known for following other conferences just for the sake of doing so. I don't think there will be more expansion in the Big Ten for awhile unless ND wants to join.
B1G shouldn’t expand for the sake of expansion. IF all the building crumble and Mega conferences are a must THEN we pick up ND/Maryland/Rutger(UGH!!)/Missouri. All AAU schools except ND.
DC/NY/NJ/STL/KC TV markets =$$$$.
Am I the only one who thinks a 16 team "conference" is probably the dumbest idea ever? Who wants to see teams once or twice a decade when you play in the same conference as them? Just too big. I for one hope the Big Ten stays put at 12 or if we're so hell bent on adding teams only go to (also too many but more palatable) 14/
What you are seeing is just the natural progression toward a playoff.
Doesn't this water everything down? More teams in a conference is bad for rivalries, and I don't understand the financial benefit. You split your bowl winnings evenly, so by the SEC adding 4 teams, it will be financially detrimental in the current system. There will never be a sec v sec championship since someone has to lose, and since most spots in the big bowls are allotted to conferences, I don't see there being an increase in big bowl births to counteract the growing number of hands reaching into the pot(no pun intended).
Also, because the Big Ten has equal revenue sharing, adding more teams means each school gets a smaller slice of the pie. Accordingly, it only makes sense to expand if you can add a school that clearly expands the revenue stream. Given that we already get two teams in the BCS virtually every year (which is the maximum allowed), it's not that simple to find new schools that will bring in more money.
congratulations Texas, you officially killed the Big 12
I dont see the SEC takin Missouri it just way to far away teams flyin halfway across the country for a game and I doubt fans travel that far... I could see possibly Georgia Tech instead
I'm surprised the SEC doesn't add Oklahoma and Okie State.
they add 4 teams for 16 total. You don't add 2 because you only have 7 per division and with the protected cross division game, 7 teams would be hard to manage per division.
I'd like to see: Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
Notre Dame, in my opinion, is the trigger..though the most difficult trigger. You get them into the fold and I think it becomes much easier to convince Oklahoma. ND already has several built in rivalries and OU would get to renew their's with Nebraska. Pitt is already renewing the rivalry with Penn St and Syracuse would be key, in terms of the NY TV market and for basketball purposes (ND and Pitt for basketball as well).
OU and OSU are a package deal per their state legislature.
This is so stupid. I am all for expansion, but Im just not feelin these teams going to the SEC. It would also totally ruin college hoops. The only way Id be on board for these changes, is if it meant there'd be a playoff. Really doubt that will happen, but you never know.
ND and Texas or Oklahoma. If we somehow get both then I say we get Pitt or Rutgers to expand the East coast exposure.
The only teams out of those that I think would ever be approved would be Duke and UNC and that would be a tough sell. UNC has that scandal going on right now in football and would hurt the B1G's image. Duke cares only about basketball and nothing about football. I think the B1G's basketball schedule works against us for them. The rest of the teams aren't dominant enough in either basketball or football to justify bringing them in with their academics.
If we take VaTech, then we need to take Virginia, becuase there is no way the VA legislature will allow VaTech to leave without Virginia.
People were saying the same thing about Texas/Texas A&M back when Texas was rumored to be coming to the Big Ten, and yet, by all accounts, Texas A&M will now be leaving the Big XII without Texas.
There is no way Duke, and UNC leave the ACC. Forget about football, the ACC is a basketball powerhouse. There is no way the state of North Carolina allows the break up of UNC, and Duke from NC State, and Wake Forrest.
I like your progressive thought process, but a more likely scenario would be to bring in teams from the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, and Midwest, not the Southeast.
As for the state of NC allowing that breakup.... Duke is a private school and can do what it wants.
That said, there's no way Duke goes anywhere without UNC (and vice versa) and I highly doubt they'd leave the ACC.
Big Ten basketball is great as well and Big Ten football would be an upgrade.
The odds of us getting ND are still going to be slim .... With that being said I wouldnt mind taking a Rutgers , Kansas , Missouri and Oklahoma
His kneecap and he'll be back in a week. On my phone so I can't post it or see if anyone else has posted it, so apologies if this has already been posted.
Although I must say... "dislocated his kneecap" + "back in a week" = one tough motherf*cker.
He just wants those extra few days to make sure he's 100%, right?
I don't understand why so many are upset about this? This is change and it is inevitable. The Big Ten better get busy or we will be left behind.
Inevitable New Mega Conference Scenario:
I think making another run at ND is inevitable. After that, I would definitely be ok with adding Pitt, OU and Ok St. That way we could split into semi-rational East-West divisions (with those names, not f'ing Leaders/Legends).
East: Michigan, MSU, tOSU, PSU, Pitt, Indiana, Purdue and Notre Dame
West: OU, Ok St., Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Northwestern
We would have MSU, OSU and ND in our division. The competitive balance wouldn't be too far off, for football anyways (basketball may need some tweaking). Do away with the cross division protected games. Go to a 9 game conference schedule, rotating two from the opposite division every year.
More teams in a conference means more revenue, but there's probably an optimum size in terms of revenue per team. It's entirely possible that each school in the B1G earns less after the next expansion than they do before even though the total revenue goes up.
Obviously this depends in large part on which schools are added. Notre Dame, regardless of their decline over the past 15-20 years, adds a lot of potential viewers. I don't see teams like Kansas and Kansas State adding a lot, although they make sense geographically (although I have no idea if they do academically). Rutgers allows expansion into the east coast, but that may or may not be worth the trouble. At this point I don't think there are a lot of home runs out there.
Keep in mind that these mega-conferences may not be all that stable. The SEC may go up to 16, but they may not stay at 16 for long if it doesn't prove to be a good fit for individual member schools. If the SEC mega-conference falls apart, the leftover portion may not be as good as the SEC is now (in terms of either football or revenue).
So I'm a little leery of further expansion for the B1G at this point.
The Big Ten better get busy or we will be left behind.
And how are we defining "left behind"? The SEC went to 12 teams and a conference title game 19 (!) years agp. We're just doing that now. But does that mean the Big Ten has been on the verge of collapse? Hardly.
Even if it's true that the SEC has been more successful than the Big Ten, that cannot be said for any other conference. The WAC went to 16 teams in the mid-'90s and quickly split in two. The Big 12, which went to 12 teams and a championship game about 15 years ago, is splitting up. The ACC, which went to 12 teams and a championship game several years ago, is about to get raided by the SEC. Adding new teams is not the guaranteed cash cow people seem to think.
Change for the sake of change is useless. Adding Nebraska gives us the lucrative championship game. It's not clear that adding a 13th or 14th team would do anything similar in terms of revenue - much less going to 16 teams.
When did those schools get football teams? lol
UConn, Pitt, Rutgers,Oklahoma.
Would garner more accidental viewer eyeballs in the I-95 megapolis, than exist in the State of Missouri.
Virginia would also be a snooty choice that would extend viewership from the Mason-Dixon line to Myrtle Beach.
Think about it, Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wash D.C., Richmond, hmmmm.....maybe double the revenue......
I don't really like the idea of 16 team conferences. It just seems kind of pointless when you are going to play some teams like twice every decade. However, I guess this is probably one of the only ways we can actually see a playoff.
Here's where I can get on board?
FINAL RESULT: 12 good games, 3 rivalries, and 9 of the other 13 on a rotating basis.
I honestly don't care if we only play some combination of; Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska plus 3 new members TBD...if...we play Michigan State, Notre Dame, and Ohio(State) every year... By ditching the preseason games (Western, Central, BGSU, Toledo, et al) replacing them with B1G games.
The other super conferences would need to do the same for competitive balance.
Oklahoma's academics will keep them out of the B1G, probably forever. Nebraska might want to get them in, but that's about it. They are too far away and have no relationship with any of the other B1G teams.
I don't see the B1G expanding just to keep up with the SEC/Pac-1X. The 12 team set-up works as it is, and I see no reason to change it.
Not only is OU a mediocre academic institution, they don't bring anything in regards to a major media market or geographic match-- and if Okie State has to come, that's just another killer. My guess is that they aren't close to the top of the list as far as B10 targets.
I don't think our OSU is a good fit.
I have also heard that Pitt/WVU could potentially be a package deal. IMO I wouldn't mind seeing some "lesser" teams to expand the BIG 10 out.
Kansas, 'Cuse, VaTech, and Virginia in my mind would be ideal. All solid universities and this would expand the BIG 10 from Kansas to the DC area. Kansas and 'Cuse are solid with basketball, VaTech and Virginia for football (obviously virginia is not a huuge name but VaTech is a very successful ACC team).
Uva used to be really good in Football and Basketball and they're top notch academically. Maybe in the Big Ten they could regain some of their luster.
What would be the basis for WVU and Pitt being a package deal? Sounds extraordinarily far fetched that Pitt would turn down an invitation to the B1G (or WVU to the SEC) unless the other was included.
No way are Pitt and WVU a package deal. For all of the rivalry, they're completely different institutions...like, more different than M/OSU different.
Officially official according to espn ticker and Doug Gotlieb
Crap, the SEC is already too big for it's britches. The Vol fans here will be lauding it even more now (that seems hard to believe the way they laud it now). Why are we complaining about Texas being a primadona and asking for Notre Dame (the world's largest primadona) pot, kettle, black ,Hello. I'm not sure who I'd want the most but Syracuse (NY market) Maryland (DC market) would make sense money/rating market wise, I'm not sure about academics though. I just hope the Big 10 saw this coming and has a contingency plan, but knowing Delany...I'm sure he doesn't. Well, at least we have the best 12 team conference in the country.
I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning Maryland. Nobody cares about Maryland football, and their basketball program is good but not great. Whats the appeal?
I see Maryland as a stronger choice than Kansas. Maryland has potential at football, has made some bowl games, and gives us an east coast presence into the Baltimore and DC markets.
Independents will not survive in this mega confence scenario. For one, teams might not be allowed to play out of conference games since there will be fifteen other in conference teams, and if you do a ten game conference schedule do you really think Michigan is going to go to Notre Dame Stadium when they already have to play Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Penn State, Little Brother, Iowa, Nebraska, ext. ext.
The SEC has done its homework and have in mind that getting the "brand name" is greater than getting media markets. College football is national now and having Florida St. vs LSU etc.. will be greater than having LSU vs Maryland despite the media market in Baltimore. Nationally they will be able to sell FSU vs LSU better. I think if the Big Ten take teams like UConn, Syracuse, and Maryland would be a mistake. Those are media markets that are interested in much more than just college football. Nebraska vs Michigan would get a lot of national attenion versus Michigan vs UConn. At the moment, the product is better than the media markets. Oklahoma, W.Virgina, Pitt, VT, and N. Carolina are good products. For those that say that the B1G will not do anything or that we shouldn't then remember this: If the SEC and Pac 12 and other conferences like the ACC go to 16 teams they will ask the NCAA for a guarenteed 2nd BCS bowl. It would be hard for the B1G to send 2 teams to the BCS on an annual basis with just 12 teams.
I'm with you Southlander. I'd much rather see Oklahoma, Pitt, WVU etc. but it seemed that when all the talk was happening last year the Big Ten was looking at tv markets as much as teams. I'd rather have great teams and if they also equal big markets great...but the best 2 or 4 teams would be my preference.
They always do. Their restrictions are academics (they stretched to get Nebraska in, and without AAU or whatever now, they may NOT have gotten in). Second, they want geographic contiguity; Texas may be the exception.
I think a third thing is they only care about football...see Nebraska.
If you accept those, then the only real choices outside hail mary's like ND and Texas are Mizzou, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn.
Oklahoma is a nonstarter because I don't think we take the likes of Okie state, Kansas St, etc. Kansas doesn't really play football, do they?
Texas is interesting, because I don't think they want to go to the SEC and have equality. But I wonder if the Pac 10 or Big 10 would consider allowing them to have their own network in texas. I think the Pac 10 is much more likely in this scenario.
One thing is for sure...if SEC goes to 16, the Big 10 and Pac 10 will almost certainly have to as well. ACC will only survive that way too, which means they will probably have to steal some from the Big East again, killing off that conference for good.
The Big Ten is doing quite well with 12 schools. Four schools rank among the most prestigious programs in the nation (Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, and PSU), and the second tier schools (Wisconsin and Iowa) are also quite strong. It makes no sense to add more schools unless they would contribute positively to league finances and competitiveness, and the only schools that can do that are Notre Dame and Texas*. Adding the likes of Syracuse and Mizzou would merely be adding an additional mouth to feed while eliminating possibilities for future expansion.
*I am not including Oklahoma, as their academics are not strong enough for Big Ten membership.
in what way?
I certainly hope you're not talking about academics.
I probably should've been more clear there, but I figured that including OSU on the list would make it clear that I wasn't talking about academics. Not that I mean to downplay OSU's academics, but the literacy rate of OSU students is a little too low for them to be considered among the elite.
New York is essentially fertile ground for College Football. That may be why Rutgers ( or even UConn ) may be In the mix. Similarly maryland gets you the DC and Baltimore media markets. Virginia Tech and UVa get you DC. If I were picking and were interested primarily in the financial side of things, I'd go Rutgers and Virginia Tech, followed by Maryland. The latter by the way would wind up as an ideal rival for PSU.
I don't think VT will help the DC market. It would definitely get the hampton roads market though. DC is all basketball and UVA if you had to pick a football team. Saying VT gets you DC is equivalent to saying Michigan alone could get Chicago. Living in Virginia, I'd love to have Tech...but UVA would almost be perfect. They are essentially Northwestern of the south.
Texas should be an independent. They're ridiculous.
as a long island,ny native, let me tell you guys that syracuse would definately be a great addition to the B1G along with ND for many reasons.First of all, for those who say they do not bring in the NY market are crazy.Go into any bar downstate Ny in the city or the island and of course upstate near the cuse and you will always see the cuse games on TV with numerous people intently focused on the games.Second, Syracuse is a good academic school which would definately be accepted in the B1G(they are rankeed 55 with schools like tOSU, minny,MSU, indiana and others behind them along with other expansion candidates in the NY megalopolis area like Pitt,Uconn,and Rutgers.Third theyve had a decent football history with some greats coming through the program (Jim Brown anyone)?Fourth,the hoops program is an absolute juggernaut and draws 30000 every bball game.There lacrosse team is the most dominant in history and while many may not know much about lax, ity is by far the fastest growing sport in the nation and with ND would need 1 more team to form a B1G lax conference similar to hockey(which syracuse also sits in a hockey hotbed and while they only have a womens team because of title 9, a mens team is wanted by many and would be a great addition to the hockey conference). I know many may discount their fball program but if they move into the B1G, recruiting will skyrocket and instant prestige would be given therefore instantly upping the program.
When we talk about adding a market to the Big Ten, we're talking about getting the Big Ten Network on basic cable. During the last round of expansion, it was concluded that Syracuse could not do this on their own. Even if we added Syracuse and Rutgers, it is unclear if that would be successful.
At this rate, the ACC and Big 12 will have just enough teams left to combine and form the fourth superconference.
They all agree with UT's demand to call it the "Texas and Riff Raff Conference"
If the SEC adds A&M, I'd have to believe the team they add simultaneously is either Clemson or FSU. Those two just seem like SEC teams, don't they?
And the B10 had a chance to add Mizzou and Pitt, but passed. So why would they add them now? It only makes sense to do so if the B10 expands to 16: ND, Mizzou, Pitt and one more. Oklahoma, maybe.
the big ten would never add Pitt if the cuse was in the market.Cuse=better academics, more national exposure,NY market,and better athletic department by far.
In what world do you live in where Syracuse has better academics than Pitt? Certainly not the same one I live in.
To even be considered to join the B1G, I believe a university should have to pass what I call the "Sparty Test". Simply put, if a school cannot bring more to the B1G table than what MSU brings, they should not be added. Plain and simple.
So lets look at MSU (honestly) in the two categories that seem to matter regarding conference expansion.
Football: In general, I think you can generate a pretty good correlation between on-field football success long-term, and football attendance. Sparty averages around 73k fans for their home games, which puts them at mediocre, winning the conference title once every 15-20 years. I don't want another B1G school that draws less than 73k for their home games.
Academics: Before UNL, Sparty competed with IU for the bottom spot in the conference. I don't want another UNL academically. Whatever school we add should not be worse academically than Sparty. That is not B1G style.
And for discussion sake, I will give their hoops program some credit, but only to dispute any arguments made that we should somehow consider adding school X because they have a great hoops progam. Even if the school does have a hoops program, if their acadmics and football are below MSU, they still fail the Sparty test because MSU also has a good hoops progam.
So with all that being said, what schools out there have both better academics and football than Sparty (and can reasonably be consider for B1G membership)? The only two I can think of are ND and Texas.
ND won't join and we don't want Texas. Thus for that reason, the B1G should stay at 12.
To further your point, basketball simply doesn't bring in as much revenue/profit as football. I believe that UNC football actually brings in more $ than UNC basketball.
Forbes considers UNC basketball to be the most valuable basketball program in the nation at 25.9 Million. Texas football is valued at $119 Million by Forbes.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but this is a HUGE loss for ESPN. They own deals with the SEC and the Longhorn Network. Their establisment of the Horn network basically killed themselves. If A&M goes to the SEC, the contract with ESPN and the SEC is void. I'd bet the SEC then tries to establish their own network like the Big Ten. ESPN may have just lost a TON of money.
1. Texas was planning on developing the LHN and ESPN decided to try to scoop it up because they'd rather own it then someone else.
2. The SEC contract with ESPN will not be void if the SEC adds new members. They will probably have to adjust the contract to accomodate the new arrivals because of the "look-in" clause to the contract, but this will not lead to the contract being voided under any circumstances.
The NCAA is trying to figure out ways to prevent student athletes from making money on the side while simultaneously watching conferences squable and scramble to figure out how to maximize bowl and network revenues. If they're so damn concerned with there being a level playing field for student athlethes financially then they aught to walk the talk and just split sports revenue equally across the board. If you believe this is unfair, citing something along the lines that it would be ridiculous for Texas and San Diego State to be on the same playing field as fair as revenue is concerned when it's completely obvious that Texas is worth a lot more, consider a comparision a comparision between Andrew Luck and Nick Sheridan and think about how that's not nearly the same thing. People are willing to pay more for Texas sports on their own, and so they do by buying the Longhorn Network. In the same sense that boosters are willing to pay to see Reggie Bush do ridiculous things in their school colors. The NCAA is helping neither party in these examples, yet they feel some need to restrict the student athelte because that situation was "unfair". If student athletes need to be subjected to the "student athlete" and "tradition" cheap talk, then so should schools. Because this re-alignment stuff is hypocritical and fucking stupid. If the day comes where we don't have the oppurtunity to shedule Alabama because we need to load our schedule with Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse you can count me in for the NFL Network.
It's not official yet as far as A&M joining the SEC. The BOR are meeting Monday to OK the move (although they already authorized the President to make the move). Tomorrow the SEC is voting to grant A&M membership officially, although they've already told A&M they are in.
The only potential hold up is pressure from the Texas state congress and from UT. UT wants A&M to stay and is using their lawyers to do so, despite UT bullying A&M with the Longhorn Network. Some congressmen are worried A&M leaving will mean fewer dollars for TTech & Baylor (because the Big12 could dissolve and they would be relegated to CUSA like conferences). Welcome to the shenanigans that is Texas politics...
The B1G go and snap up Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Virginia and Va. Tech. Sorry ND the ship has sailed for you.
Nothing will happen. A&M is trying to get more money from Big12/Texas. Once they get a bigger slice of the pie they will be content with staying in the Big 12 for now.
Oklahoma doesn't pass the Sparty test in academics, Virgina doesn't pass the Sparty test in football (though it would be a huge gain academically to add them), and Oklahoma State doesn't pass the Sparty test in either category. VaTech also doesn't pass the Sparty test academically, and probably not in football either.
Thus all four schools are a no-go.... though I do wish UVa was in the B1G footprint.
A perrenial top 15 football program and you're saying they don't pass the Sparty test? Come on now...
Also, I think you'd be surprised at their academics, alot of the engineering degrees are just barely below Michigan's. The would certainly be a better academic school than Sparty...
way is the BIG taking Kansas or Kstate. Sorry Bball fans, but that sport has ZERO say in expansion. Also, KU has nothing to do with the St. Louis market. There are not even the fourth biggest college team in that market.
OU, Texas, ND would be nice football wise. Im sure the BIG will end up taking 2 two teams that I generally won't care for though like Pitt and Maryland.
I think the big ten needs to take another shot at notre dame, maybe with Texas. Notre Dame has solid histories with Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State. They for the regional, academic, and athletic standards of the Big ten as well. With all this change and movement with conferences, and possibly leading to a playoff, Notre Dame could finally join.
a great addition, even more so when coupled with ND